On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Making repeat a keyword would have such an extremely high cost
> that it is out of the question and not a sane proposal.
> To start with, it is used in two major, widely used APIs.
>
> itertools.repeat + 50 uses in other
Making repeat a keyword would have such an extremely high cost
that it is out of the question and not a sane proposal.
To start with, it is used in two major, widely used APIs.
itertools.repeat + 50 uses in other itertools and tests
+ all the imports and and uses of repeat()
in code all over
On Thursday 04 August 2016 19:13, BartC wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 04:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
>
>>> So the idea that remembering 'repeat N' is a cognitive burden, and the
>>> myriad string operations for example are not, is ridiculous.
>>
>> Who says
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:13 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 04:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
>
>
>>> So the idea that remembering 'repeat N' is a cognitive burden, and the
>>> myriad string operations for example are not, is
On 04/08/2016 04:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
So the idea that remembering 'repeat N' is a cognitive burden, and the
myriad string operations for example are not, is ridiculous.
Who says it isn't a cognitive burden? Of course it is.
The difference is
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 06:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Not everything that is done is worth the cognitive burden of memorising a
>> special case.
>
>
>> In some ways, Python is a more minimalist language than you like. That's
>> okay, you're allowed to
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:16 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 06:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Not everything that is done is worth the cognitive burden of memorising a
>> special case.
>
>
>
>> In some ways, Python is a more minimalist language than you like. That's
>>
On 03/08/2016 06:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Not everything that is done is worth the cognitive burden of memorising a
special case.
In some ways, Python is a more minimalist language than you like. That's okay,
you're allowed to disagree with some design decisions.
Well it's
On Wednesday 03 August 2016 05:14, BartC wrote:
> It's fundamental in that, when giving instructions or commands in
> English, it frequently comes up when you want something done a set
> number of times:
>
> "Give me 20 push-ups"
At which point the person will invariable drop to the ground and
On 02/08/2016 22:27, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 8/2/2016 7:05 AM, BartC wrote:
Your objection to a feature such as 'repeat N' doesn't really stack up.
My objection is that there is a real cost that MUST be stacked up
against the benefit.
...
Anyway, if that was a valid objection, it would
Terry Reedy writes:
> I think it is you who is unwilling to admit that nearly everything
> that would be useful also has a cost, and that the ultimate cost of
> adding every useful feature, especially syntax features, would be to
> make python less unusable.
I think you meant
On 8/2/2016 7:05 AM, BartC wrote:
On 31/07/2016 19:58, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, BartC wrote:
repeat N:
The benefit is not so much performance, but being able to express
something very easily and quickly.
The cost of the 'repeat' contraction is that one cannot use the
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> - Arbitrary-precision non-integers
>
>
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bigfloat/
>
> ?
Wasn't aware of that. Cool. Not that I need it very often (and when I
do, I can use Pike, which has MPFR support built-in). Or I
Am 02.08.16 um 16:58 schrieb Chris Angelico:
- A more free-form declarative syntax for laying out GUI code
Actually, the Tkinter wrapper misses one feature of grid in Tcl/Tk: You
can write something like
grid .a .b
grid .c .d
to lay out a GUI 2x2 grid using "ASCII-art". There is a package
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 03:12 am, BartC wrote:
>
>> That's not a fundamental language feature. Repeat-N is. And if properly
>> designed, isn't an extra feature at all but a special case of a generic
>> loop.
>
> Which
On 02/08/2016 18:57, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 03:12 am, BartC wrote:
That's not a fundamental language feature. Repeat-N is. And if properly
designed, isn't an extra feature at all but a special case of a generic
loop.
Which means it is NOT a fundamental language feature.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 03:12 am, BartC wrote:
> That's not a fundamental language feature. Repeat-N is. And if properly
> designed, isn't an extra feature at all but a special case of a generic
> loop.
Which means it is NOT a fundamental language feature.
"Repeat N without tracking the loop
On 02/08/2016 15:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:05 PM, BartC wrote:
I think the real reason is not willing to admit that the language lacks
something that could actually be useful, and especially not to an upstart on
usenet who is not even an expert in that
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:05 PM, BartC wrote:
> I think the real reason is not willing to admit that the language lacks
> something that could actually be useful, and especially not to an upstart on
> usenet who is not even an expert in that language.
I know what features I miss
On 31/07/2016 19:58, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, BartC wrote:
repeat N:
The benefit is not so much performance, but being able to express
something very easily and quickly.
The cost of the 'repeat' contraction is that one cannot use the loop
variable, either as part of a
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> As for the original topic: Guido judged that a uniform rule "Compound
> statement headers end with ':' and the next line has an additional indent"
> would make correct code easier to write and parse and make it visually more
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, BartC wrote:
The costs are near zero: at minimum, a syntactic construct such as:
repeat N:
that expands to:
for _ in range(N):
The benefit is not so much performance, but being able to express
something very easily and quickly.
The cost of the 'repeat' contraction
22 matches
Mail list logo